... I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.

Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

[snip]

Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.

``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

Were any of those simulations set up at a single point in time, based on conditions observed at that point and extrapolations from that data using assumptions similar to those being used today, then allowed to run for a century? ... I get the impression that the methodology was the opposite. On a much shorter timeline - like year by year - it looks like they took a look at all observed data and fed it into the model to get an impact assessment for the various observatios for that year. Thus impacts like Mt. Pinatubo are explained. Of course, a prediction started in 1900 would not (likely) have predicted a Mt. Pinatubo event.

I'm not sure. Clearly in order to reproduce the effect of the forcings, the forcings have to be accounted for. That's probably why they compare runs with "natural" forcings only to forcings with both natural and anthropogenic forcing.

If we knew now what those variations would be from now until 2100, we'd have some confidence that the models could provide a correlation between that future volcanic activity and future temperature, for example. ... But we don't know how those factors will vary in the future.

Solar is another question, but despite not knowing when a volcano will erupt, it could be stated with some confidence that the next century will probably have 1-3 large explosions in the Krakatoa-Pinatubo range, and that the effects of those explosions will persist 4-5 years, with most of the effect occurring in the first two years after the eruption.

But the burden of proof should be squarely on those who advocate massive economic harm to the US particularly and without corresponding impact to our competitors (i.e. Kyoto Protocol), or who advocate massive centralization of power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats (i.e. Kyoto Protocol). These data do not provide that proof.

Because my position on climate change is that it can be addressed by steps that are increasingly necessary to alter the nation's dependence on foreign oil imports (for economic and national security reasons), I'm interested in the science of climate change, and I think that the Kyoto Protocol is a useless side issue. I don't think it will ever substantially influence U.S. domestic or foreign policy -- but energy policy is very important.

One interesting note: A single volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo) is reported to have had twice the effect of all man-made warming combined for that corresponding year. Perhaps the solution to global warming is to detonate a few nuclear devices in not-quite-active volcanos.

Perhaps a bit drastic, and hard to control. There was recently a suggestion by a noted scientist that if global warming must be addressed, controlled stratospheric release of sulfate aerosols could be contemplated.

I'd like to see, for example, an analysis of what hydrogen as a fuel, or nuclear power does to these data. Both can reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere, but they increase water vapor (which is a worse greenhouse gas) though not on a pound-for-pound basis.

The water vapor content of the atmosphere (relative humidity) is a feedback of the climate system determined by Earth's radiative balance. Since the evaporative term from the ocean's overwhelms any anthropogenic contribution.

Absolutely. A rational energy policy would accept as a given that we need more energy every year. Else is the nightmare slide into eternal barbarism. But where does the energy come from?

That needs to consider the nature of the energy storage and transport. If right now we had a totally hydrogen-fueled transport system and someone came up with a fuel with 5 times the energy density, that was further a liquid at room temperature and pressure so storage was easy, we'd jump all over it. Cars need gasoline. On the other hand, using fuel oil for home heating or powerplants (except as a way to employ what is left over after a barrel of raw crude has produced all the gasoline it can) is just wrong.

Powerplants, unless there is a handy high-head-pressure hydro source (i.e. Hoover dam) should be nuclear. It's the safest, least polluting power source known to man, but it takes a large, permanent, immobile installation. Right now, all the 'renewable energy sources' other than water power are not cost effective. This is disguised by massive government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies for things like wind power, but an honest look at the numbers shows they don't really work (except, again, in certain limited locations with a particular geographic advantage like very steady winds).

Natural gas is a 'natural' for distributed heating, since burning gas produces very stable heat when burned in atmospheric conditions (compensating for minor variations in feed rate as things wear - something that gasoline will not tolerate). That's not terribly volume efficient, and external combustion is not terribly safe for mobile installations (such as cars). But it works great for homes. Electrical heating of homes (except as a very occasional thing as in Southern California or Hawaii) is just too inefficient for a rational energy policy.

If we focused our energy policy on considerations like that, we would both increase our efficiency (through things like gas heating instead of electric heating for homes) and increase our available energy sources (through use of nuclear power for electricity generation, freeing up fuel oil for mobile users like cars and trucks). Special case users, like large volume trucks and transport aircraft might take advantage of hydrogen with an acceptable penalty.

However, once we get as efficient as practical - while still providing a decent standard of living - we need to identify and exploit sources of the various types of energy-producer. That means drilling for oil in ANWR, etc.

Notice how many of those options that start from an acceptance that we need a continuing supply of energy are the opposite of what would be accepted by those who most complain about no energy policy? All they want is to restrict usage, and I am personally convinced it's so they can control our lives. If, for example, the only way to get around is on public transport, then whoever controls that transport controls a major part of our lives. If, for example, we all have to live in high-density housing (so that commutes are shorter) then we wouldn't be able to 'vote with our feet' to move from suburb to suburb and thus big-city bureaucrats (a natural government constituency) control more of our lives.

Thus, while the Kyoto protocol itself may die a well-deserved death, the basic socialist attitude of using energy/pollution controls as a way to control and limit free choice is the wave of the future. It needs to be combatted in every way that we can.

But we know more about predicting the weather than we do about predicting climate change. There are more variables, more unknowns, more assumptions in the climate models. Yet that is the major foundation of climate change 'science'. What Alfred P. Sloan state was all true.

For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

Unbelievable. The global warming NAZIs will stop at nothing to advance their radical left-wing agenda.

But we know more about predicting the weather than we do about predicting climate change.

I agree. Weather prediction is based on fluid dynamics models. The accuracy of weather prediction is based on the computational power running the model and the spatial and temporal resolution of inputs to the model.

There are more variables, more unknowns, more assumptions in the climate models.

Which necessarily follows because the factors that influence climate are more varied than the factors that influence weather.

Academia is like a police state, where there is "correct" thought and "incorrect" thought. Same idea as "correct thought" under totalitarian dictatorships: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and the Kims. The academics are so intellectually weak they fail to understand that they are trapped inside a mental jail where no dissent is permitted. And those who have figured it out dare not challenge the status quo, if they plan to "succeed" in academia. Instead they have religions with names such as "diversity", "affirmative action", "global warming", "class warfare", and "stop the war". And these fools are "teaching" our kids!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming. Freep-mail me to get on or off.Add me! / Remove me Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

I've noted a significant expansion of your grasp of the issue over the past year or so. Well-ingrained thought patterns are not easy to change; the most important aspect of "grasping" an issue is a willingness to constantly re-examine it in light of new information.

The global warming debate gives pseudo intellectuals something to talk about with the marginally informed at cocktail parties, and others like gore, who've never had a real job, a means to bring in cash.

I don't doubt that a bit, but do you have anything that supports it? I'd love to throw it in some people's faces.

Before you throw too much, note that there's a significant difference between a "climatologist" and a "climate scientist". In general, climatologists compile statistical records: precipitation, heating or cooling degree days, high temperature and low temperature records, streamflow, etc. They also perform statistical analyses of the records. (This doesn't mean they aren't scientists; it's a different aspect of science.)

Climate scientists generally study the processes which affect climate, locally, regionally, and globally. This usually involves more modeling, use of different kinds of observational data (remote sensing, atmospheric sounding), and a lot of comparisons to the statistical archives compiled by climatologists.

Please note that I said "generally" in both cases; I'm sure that there are climatologists and climate scientists that don't fit into these generalities.

I've always wondered why there seems to be a disparity in the climatologist view of climate change compared to the climate scientist view. I suspect that it's partly due to the "inertia" of climate data -- it takes years to decades for a trend to assert itself in the day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, and year-to-year data. Climate scientists may take a longer view, decade to century scale.

Contemporary anthropology has been an avocation of mine for a couple of decades.

In my observations, I've noticed that the faster science advances i.e. computers, nanotechnology, medicine, the more people seek "understanding" and therefore control over knowledge. It seems to be a hardwired characteristic of humankind to slip into superstition when the advance of knowledge outstrips the individual's ability to keep up. Many people are brilliant in one field or another and dolts in most everything else.

This would seem to be the case with the more or less recent emergence of environmentalism as a cause that many otherwise intelligent people attach to as a means of keeping "control" over something in their lives.

Scientists are no different than the less technically schooled in this regard.

Just a thought...

68
posted on 08/31/2006 7:42:25 AM PDT
by oneolcop
(Take off the Gloves!)

There's three choices; the globe warms, cools, or stays the same. The last isn't going to happen, so you're basically down to two choices. Either one is going to throw people into a tail spin.

Plus, if you look at the earth's geologic history, the planet has usually been significatly warmer for long periods of time that it is now. We are technically in a cooler than average period. Propose to these people that the Earth is simply returning to it's naturally historically warmer state. Then you could ask them what caused the earth to be warmer then?

I don't think that people are in real denial that there is some warming occurring at the present, but the cause and just what there is that can be done about it are what's causing the controversy. There is also the impendng ice age hysteria that was rampant in the 70's based on the same short term temperature trends. Many younger people wouldn't be aware of that.

My experience is that the meteorologists at the NWS find the global warming issue to be a real blood pressure raiser. The ones I've talked to don't believe it and get pretty riled when it's mentioned.

69
posted on 08/31/2006 7:55:29 AM PDT
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

My respect for Alex Beam went from zero to non-zero. At the very least, he correctly exposes the thuggish tactics of GW fanatics. Whenever someone says the debate is over, they're lying. And they say it a lot.

Scientists have been known time and and time again to be very wrong in conclusions that have a wide consensus among them.

A couple of companies are pursuing a car engine that operates on compressed air...seems like a good solution for congested cities to run their fleet of buses and city cars. I read somewhere that Mexico city has ordered thousands.

If you want to try something interesting, go to CLIMVIS and plot temperatures for any given month using airport weather data.

That is part of the problem. For instance, here in Raleigh the airport moved some years ago (70s I think).

The new airport was in the boondocks when it was built, now it's surrounded with industry, housing developments. Many other airports are the same, such as Miami. These data are now in heat islands. Yes, they are schmoozed to account for that, but let's face it, they are SWAG ed the way the climatologists want the data.

The asinine statements coming out of the 'global warming' crowd has left them with zero credibility as far as I'm concerned. Every possible weather phenomenon that occurs is caused by 'global warming'.

Reminds me of the second hand smoke crowd, which causes everything from cancer to ingrown toenails according to them.

... I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.

LOL!

Irresponsible Professor Schneider? What I would call irresponsible is the statement you made in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Plus, if you look at the earth's geologic history, the planet has usually been significatly warmer for long periods of time that it is now.

And also, for much of earth's geological history, the continents were in different positions, the oceans were shaped differently, and the ocean current system was completely different. The Himalayan mountains didn't exist until the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia.

I.e., you have to have some context before making comparisons.

Here's what the Earth looked like in the late Cretaceous period; modern continental outlines are superimposed.

One might expect that the Earth's climate would be a little different back then.

Yes, I love how lefties have no problem seeing the possible bias from industry money (and I do believe the possibility for such bias is real), but can't see any conflict when researchers take money from the government and produce results that suggest the need for further empowering government.

Because my position on climate change is that it can be addressed by steps that are increasingly necessary to alter the nation's dependence on foreign oil imports (for economic and national security reasons), I'm interested in the science of climate change, and I think that the Kyoto Protocol is a useless side issue. I don't think it will ever substantially influence U.S. domestic or foreign policy -- but energy policy is very important.

I agree, thats why the GW issue can be turned into a Conservative cause. We should use the issue to fund a massive increase in domestic energy production, through Nuclear, solar, wind, water and Alternative Fuels. I'm afraid that conservatives may be cutting of our noses here..

80
posted on 08/31/2006 10:57:56 AM PDT
by Paradox
(The "smarter" the individual, the greater his power of self-delusion.)

I agree, thats why the GW issue can be turned into a Conservative cause.

And should be!

We should use the issue to fund a massive increase in domestic energy production, through Nuclear, solar, wind, water and Alternative Fuels.

I totally agree -- seems to me that there was a recent call for a Manhattan Project-level program for energy. Googling...

Yep, there's stuff like that out there, and not everybody agrees with the "Manhattan Project" idea. I think that there does need to be federal funding of basic and applied research to develop and improve alternatives -- particularly funding to research in corporations, not exclusively academia, to encourage the applications side. Funding of academic-corporate partnerships might be a good way to go, too.

Haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but the energy efficiency of cold air is just horrible. We can't even use it to start a jet engine once, not with reasonable size bottles.

I suppose with a zillion psi or so you could store enough energy to be useful - but that would make one heck of a bomb, or cut through just about anything if it ever developed a leak.

My take on it is that cold air (meaning compressed, but not combusted for power) becomes dangerous before it becomes useful as a power source. Of course, with a low enough horsepower requirement, you can make a lot of things work. But I wonder if an equivalently sized gasoline/diesel engine might not be better overall for pollution and fuel use, once you figure in the need to have some way to compress that air in the first place.

The Russians have complete control of Gore. He is there man. They have him dead to rights on an issue where Gore violated International Law in dealing with a situation within Russia during the waning years of Clinton. I don't recall the specifics, but read about it within a Russia media outlet story. Coincidently, the Russians, through Gorbachev, have been promoting the reactionary environmental hysterics. This is rather comical considering the environmental record of Cold War communist states.

The same was said when we went for Clinton's impeachment. After all if we had succeeded, Global Warming Gore would have been President. In the long run, because we stood for principals, morals and justice, while the left stood for corruption, no-morals and law breaking, conservatives ended up winning when Clinton viewed his own decadent personal life as being more important then the nations life.

So basically, we should never advocate the use of junk science. Besides, as China's growth continues to explode, the Earth's environment will be in their hands before too long. Now if you truly believe that apes are changing long term weather trends, the fact that the Communist Chinese will be the dominant producing and consuming apes within a few decades, should cause shivers to run up and down your spine. The instability of the Middle East is more then enough reason to make the development of alternative fuels a national strategic imperative.

Well...if by inefficient you mean increased costs to convert and operate this system - you may be right. Of course, you probably mean inefficient as an system to store and release energy. That I don't know. I'll leave it to the experts to make that determination.

But if converting significantly reduces air pollution in a congested city - say, Denver or LA - the trade off may be worth it by reducing health care costs and loss of productivity associated with air pollution.

The safety of the storage tanks was of immediate concern when I first looked at this technology. The carbon fiber tanks address some of these safety concerns. And real life auto accidents and Hollywood movies remind us that gasoline is not without its hazards.

I think the future will have many competing engine technologies to choose from...In the future, gas stations will adapt to these many engines types and just sell a variety of fuels.

89
posted on 09/01/2006 9:52:44 AM PDT
by aligncare
(In warfare, the only moral stance is to win.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.